Now, I don't agree that the city should be passing any ordinances defining anything to do with compliance with open records requests. Of course, if the attorney general would lay down some rules that protect politicians' privacy, we wouldn't be in this position. It's down right communist to demand access to a politician's private email correspondence because you *think* something interesting might be in there (more on this at the end). But, we find ourselves here.
The El Paso Times' awesome new reporter, Evan Mohl, wrote a piece on the ordinance that you can read HERE. It's well sourced and both sides get their due, but the city inevitably looks bad because they are literally adding a layer of muck instead of adding transparency. The comments section for once reveals something rather interesting - Debbie Nathan's intentions. Go read her words for yourself. I'll even provide a link to her Chuco Leaks article HERE.
Debbie Nathan spent a good amount of time in my mom's office bewildered by the fact that I don't live in El Paso, but still wrote about El Paso. It's a little funny that she now is back in New York all the time and seems to be obsessed with El Paso. However, if you read her comment, she's obsessed with private citizens who don't agree with her politically.
It seems that since the 7,000 emails Nathan went through had exactly zero evidence of illegal activity in them, she's now resorted to trying to track down the thinnest of leads. In this case it's a single email that appears to have been forwarded by Joyce Wilson to Richarda Momsen (who deserves a million bucks and our everlasting adoration for what she puts up with). I got the same email and a very similar one from two different people who are about as innocuous as a citizen could be. Far from ankle biters, they're just a couple of senior citizens who attend things from time to time and have an opinion. Far from being "connected" they're just looking to be involved even if it means just showing up at meetings.
Wilson sends on the emails in their entirety to Momsen knowing full well that the public could at anytime get a hold of the emails. Wilson makes no demands of Momsen. Wilson simply tells Momsen that they were sent to her and that she has no idea if they are even actionable. Momsen is left to do with the emails what she pleases.
Let's stop for a second and look at what has happened here. A concerned citizen felt they were almost tricked into signing something they didn't want to sign. That citizen also said they didn't think the notary requirement for the petitions was being met. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with a citizen voicing a concern to the city manager over what is clearly "city business."
Does the use of the pronoun "we" raise an eyebrow as to how well they know Wilson and where she might stand on the issue? Yes. However, that's no big deal when you realize that the person who wrote that email always assumes the person they are writing agrees with them. It has been a bone of contention between us for a while. I find myself often responding "don't use 'we' because I don't agree."
Bottom line - Joyce Wilson was forwarding on a citizen's concern over city business. How is this a crime? Isn't this what you want from city staff? If you send an email saying "this stinks, look into it!" you'd expect them to do something about it, right? Right.
Nathan makes it clear that she wants to expose the emailers. Her goal is to expose these two private citizens so that they can suffer the wrath of Four Names Allala, Norma Chavez and anyone else who has declared war on progress in El Paso. Debbie Nathan seeks to shame private citizens because she couldn't find public officials doing anything wrong.
What did the two emailers do wrong? Nothing. They suggested that the petitioners were trying to trick folks and that there may be a problem with the notarization of the petitions. Momsen disagreed on the notary part and didn't even comment on the other part because that's not in her purview. What does Nathan have to gain here other than the names of two citizens who were incorrect?
Seriously, what kind of evil person wants to expose two old people who are worried about a petition that wasn't even written in a manner that is useful as a ballot initiative? Debbie Nathan wants to go after concerned citizens who don't agree with her world view. No wonder people in El Paso don't vote - Debbie Nathan will bring the wrath of God down upon those who don't agree with her.
She is terrible. I feel sorry for the now very two scared senior citizens who think Debbie Nathan is going to expose them to abuse by the media and public. Debbie Nathan needs to think about what she's doing to the will of a citizen to participate in government. God help you if you sent an email to your council member and Debbie Nathan didn't agree with it. She will hunt your ass down and expose you!
------------
Here's the danger in going through personal emails of city council members. If the only thing you need to have Eddie Holguin turn over every single one of his personal emails from the past six years is a *hunch* that someone emailed him about city business - Eddie Holguin is going to be very embarrassed. Can you imagine if your boss got a court order to look through your emails because he *felt* you were talking about business on your personal email account? That would not be a great feeling, would it?
The problem with searching the personal emails of city council members is that they are not controlled by a city employed systems administrator. Who does the court compel to search their personal emails and deem what is city business and what isn't? And how do they ensure what is read isn't remembered and spread by the reader?
Think about it - you're city council member and your worst enemy decides to claim that you are using your personal email account for city business. What if that same person gets to look through all of your emails, read every single one of them and take notes? Do you want your enemy reading your love notes to your wife? Your conversations with children and friends? No? Exactly! So why do you think the current city council should be put through that torture even though you're above it?
There is no good way to through somebody's personal email for political reasons.
And herein lies the problem, David. If an e-mail is sent from a personal e-mail discussing city business, it should be made public. However, as you point out, who has the right to go through all of the PERSONAL e-mails to find the city related e-mails? You cannot trust all government officials to be honest and turn over any work related documents but you cannot allow some nut to go through everyone's personal, private e-mails. Hiring an attorney or some other expect would cost a fortunate. The good,sane citizens should worry more about Holguin's, Robinson's, and Acosta's voice conversations. Too bad those can't be recorded. I understand it is illegal to use city resources for campaigning purposes. Wonder why Martina Valverde is bragging to people that she is Robinson's campaign manager and is meeting with him in his CITY office?
Debbie Nathan is a bitter, washed-up (or never was) person who loves drama. She keeps claiming to write for the Newspaper Tree but there is no Newspaper Tree.
Posted by: Josie Bustos | February 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM
"Who does the court compel to search their personal emails and deem what is city business and what isn't?"
This is an easy one.The Texas AG'office has the right to look at the e-mail's and decide which should be released.All I can say is if you are in government in the state of Texas do not us your private e-mails to conduct government business.
Here is the problem David ,by using private e-mails they can conduct business without the citizens knowing what business is being conduct in the name of the people.Simply a way to conduct back room deals without the public knowing what action their elected officials are taking.You really need to read the preamble to the Texas open records laws.
"The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
Seems pretty clear to me if one makes a choice to us their personal e-mail to conduct government business then do not bitch if you personal e-mails are call open records.In addition only by reviewing these e-mail can the citizen know that government business was not being conducted by their elected offficials in the personal e-mail acccounts.
Now your going to say prove they were using their personal
e-mail to conduct government business.Well it goes back to the citizen rights to know what their elected offficial are doing in the name of the people.
Once again the Texas AG's office can tell what e-mails should or should not be released.
Posted by: Thomas | March 01, 2013 at 09:32 AM
It seems like there has to be some reasonable evidence that a personal email has been used for city business or city emails for personal business. It's not a black and white problem, but has a hundred shades of grey. And there are all kinds of reasons for the lines to get blurred; from ordinary carelessness to actual sinister motives. We don't have a dozen local pols sitting in Federal prison for playing tiddly-winks.
Would we know about EPA Director Lisa Jackson's alias email accounts if not for an accidental discovery? Now we have two more EPA officials being caught working with their political, environmental and media allies against the interests of the public.
Seems like the answers aren't so simple.
Posted by: dot | March 01, 2013 at 10:22 AM
It has become apparent that the anti-El Paso people (aka as crazies) do not want any sort of communication coming from any citizen of El Paso for any reason to any city rep or city staff - because they firmly believe there is some sort of "corruption" going on or secret planning or whatever.
Let me remind the crazies. Under the constitution of the USA citizens have every single right to communicate with the elected officials and government officials - regardless of whether or not it is perceived as some sort of back room deal. The Texas Attorney General can't take that right away.
to DavidK's point - all one of the crazies has to do is decide there "might be" something out there. That is the same as calling the police and telling them "I think my neighbor is doing something wrong - but I don't know exactly what it is". You think the police are going to go running over to your neighbor's house? STA already tried to bring criminal charges against JW and they were thrown out - probably became a huge joke in the DA's office - STA should stick to elder care - she obviously has no idea what level one must achieve to bring criminal charges against someone.
Posted by: Lslsls | March 01, 2013 at 10:24 AM
How ridiculous, Thomas. You think the AG has the time and money to search everyone's e-mails? You, the one who constantly cries about taxes? Do you know how crazy that sounds? And you think someone from the AG's office has the right to read through your personal, private e-mails? That is just scary.
I understand that they shouldn't be sending work related e-mails from their private accounts. However, back before the days of e-mail, people met secretly. How was that ever proven? IF Wilson was sending or receiving work e-mails at home, big freaking deal. She sent the e-mail to a city government e-mail address, so obviously she had nothing to hide.
Wilson did not have the power to make the decision on ANYTHING. And someone inquiring about the legality of the petitions is not doing ANYTHING illegal or underhanded. They were wrong and that is the bottom line. The notary on the petition is notarizing the signature of the person who signed the form of signatures. Debbie Nathan is wasting everyone's time and money. She needs to stick to New York but they will probably sue us for her moving there.
Most people are kind, decent human beings doing the best they can. Why are you so distrustful, cynical, and mean?
Posted by: Josie Bustos | March 01, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Well the place to meet "secretly" has been and always will be L&J Cafe - check it out sometime - city employees gather there all the time to meet up with engineers, architects, builders, etc. Wonder what kind of horse trading goes on there? We'll never know - because after all - its just lunch.
Maybe we should get the FBI to stake out L&J because OMG - there just might, just maybe, hopefully someone breaking the law.
I agree with Josie's comments.
Posted by: Lslsls | March 01, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Debbie Nathan is she the one that did the hack job on Sybil Exposed and calls her self a journalist? Is this the Debbie Nathan that thinks Americans are overly hysterical about adults having sex with children and age of consent? Please tell me this is not this person.
Posted by: Thomas | March 01, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Yeah, the book they can't sell and keep marking down? Sure, Thomas. The lady writes about Sybil because she is Sybil's twin. Her evil twin.
If she is so great, why is she hanging out saying she is a reporter for Newspapertree.com that IS NOT IN BUSINESS? Oh wait! The Community Foundation gave her a big fat "NO" to being a reporter.
Seems to me such a wonderful, intelligent, insightful writer would be in high demand. Silly me. RFLMAO.
Posted by: Josie Bustos | March 01, 2013 at 02:34 PM
That's not nice, you calling your mother a witch, David.
Posted by: Richard Baron | March 02, 2013 at 01:13 PM
You must be Debbie's new boy toy, Richard Baron. Mad, bro?
Posted by: Josie Bustos | March 02, 2013 at 02:00 PM
What do I have to be mad about? Your name calling of people you know nothing about renders your posts worthless.
Posted by: Richard Baron | March 02, 2013 at 02:10 PM
Richard Baron,
She's called me worse.
Please come forward with your accusations. I would love for you and Debbie to make some kind of case that private citizens have broken the law here - especially these two senior citizens. That is the purest form of defamation, you know.
Posted by: David K | March 02, 2013 at 04:00 PM
You are the one who started the name calling, Richard, so your post is worthless. You are mad because David is stating exactly what is going on by your girlfriend and you - a witch hunt.
I know more than you think about that worthless woman and you and I speak the truth.
Posted by: Josie Bustos | March 02, 2013 at 04:47 PM
David -- I have made no accusations about anyone in regards to El Paso's emailgate and personally don't really care about it very much. I was just pulling your leg when I made my initial crack on this thread. Debbie and I don't work together, we are just good friends and I respect her greatly as a journalist. I don't necessarily always agree with her but I know for certain that she is an intelligent and ethical reporter, always able to defend her position without relying on baseless innuendo and ad hominem attacks, unlike you and some of your minions. I think you are sometimes a pretty funny writer, David, and whereas I disagree with you often, I probably agree with you more than you think, but you need to raise your standards if you want to be taken seriously as a thoughtful observer. When you make personal attacks on people who you disagree with about policy, you lose credibility. And you need to temper the immature content of some of your followers. They don't reinforce your positions, they discredit them.
Posted by: Richard Baron | March 02, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Memo to Richard Baron:
Debbie Nathan is not a reporter. She is a writer who writes gossip columns disguised as pseudo-intellectual pieces. She wants to write about El Paso but she secretly dislikes it and feels superior to the population. She couldn't get hired at a newspaper if she tried, so instead she runs around acting like a reporter.
Posted by: Please | March 02, 2013 at 11:36 PM
Richard, you are the immature, uninformed one if you truly believe that about Debbie Nathan. Just look at what she posts and how she goes fishing for information. She is anything but ethical. You don't agree with us, so you attack us. You do not like what we say about your "good friend"? Don't read it. I don't like how she slanders people, so I don't read what she writes. Plain and simple.
The BIG difference between David and Debbie is David gives you an opportunity to post what you want, whether you agree with him or not. Debbie does not allow this. I wonder why?
You think it is OK for Debbie to attack innocent individuals with no facts, yet you want to belittle anyone who realizes that she is just another bitter, jealous woman scorned by the media and others who is looking for revenge.
"Please," you are very correct.
Posted by: Josie Bustos | March 03, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Thank you Richard - I'll take your advice under consideration.
Posted by: David K | March 03, 2013 at 12:05 PM